SUDHANSHU BHUSHAN SINHA,PATNA vs. AO ITO WARD 6(1), PATNA/ , LOK NAYAK BHAWAN

ITA 441/PAT/2026Status: HeardITAT Patna24 September 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that there was no proper compliance before the AO or the CIT(A) and the claim under section 54B was not considered. Although the assessee filed three written submissions, they were not discussed in the appellate order, thus violating the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, as contended by the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the AO for de novo reassessment. The assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and make further submissions. The grounds taken by the assessee in the appeal are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but the remand implies that all issues will be re-examined by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sudhanshu Bhushan Sinha, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Patna Bench at Kolkata, against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The assessee's return declared a total income of ₹2,83,780/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny concerning deduction/exemption from capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) computed long-term capital gain on land sale at ₹1,23,68,667/-, allowed a deduction of ₹54,61,463/- under section 54B, and assessed chargeable long-term capital gain at ₹69,07,204/-, leading to a total income of ₹71,90,980/-. The CIT(A) upheld the additions, citing failure to substantiate investment sources under sections 69/69B and provide reliable cost details for capital gains computation, and correctly adopting stamp duty value under section 50C. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed due to dissatisfaction with the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal and confirming the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contrary to facts and law? (Mixed law and fact) 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by failing to adjudicate the principal issue relating to deduction/exemption claimed under section 54B of the Act? (Mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment without appreciating that the agricultural lands sold were used for agricultural purposes and the sale consideration was reinvested in agricultural lands within the prescribed period, entitling the appellant to exemption under section 54B? (Mixed law and fact) 4. Whether the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the AO had accepted the indexed cost of acquisition and computation of long-term capital gain but wrongly restricted deduction under section 54B? (Mixed law and fact) 5. Whether the learned CIT(A) grossly erred in discussing and sustaining alleged additions under sections 69/69B of the Act, although no such addition was made by the AO? (Mixed law and fact) 6. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in adjudicating issues relating to section 50C without identifying any specific addition under section 50C in the assessment order and without considering the actual grounds raised by the appellant? (Mixed law and fact) 7. Whether the impugned appellate order is contrary to section 250(6) of the Act as it does not contain proper points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons for such decision? (Law) 8. Whether the learned CIT(A) failed to consider and adjudicate the documentary evidence and written submissions filed by the appellant during appellate proceedings? (Mixed law and fact) 9. Whether the learned CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the ground challenging the validity of assessment proceedings in a case selected for Limited Scrutiny and failed to record any finding thereon? (Mixed law and fact) 10. Whether the impugned appellate order is a non-speaking order passed without proper appreciation of facts and evidence and is therefore liable to be set aside? (Law) Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, failing to adjudicate the claim under section 54B, confirming the assessment without appreciating the agricultural use of lands and reinvestment, wrongly restricting the section 54B deduction, discussing additions under sections 69/69B not made by the AO, adjudicating section 50C issues without specific additions, violating section 250(6) by not providing proper points and reasons, failing to consider documentary evidence and submissions, failing to adjudicate the validity of limited scrutiny assessment, and passing a non-speaking order. The assessee also contended that the assessment and appellate orders are bad in law. Revenue's Contentions: The Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the CIT(A)'s order and requested it be upheld, stating no documentary evidence was filed for the relief claimed before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 54B,Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 69B,Section 50C,Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA ‘DB’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘Addl/JCIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the 'Act'] for AY 2017-18 dated 17.04.2026. ITA No(s). 441/PAT/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 Sudhanshu Bhushan Sinha.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following g

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 54B

All 814 judgments and leading authorities on Section 54B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →